The philosophy thread general discussion

Alright, but I would hope that someone who completed High School — and especially someone who completed High School, went to College, and is considering enrolling to a Philosophy course — would be aware of the fact that the term "metaphysics" comes from the title of a book by Aristotle and describes an abstract branch of philosophy...

edited 3rd Feb '13 2:20:34 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Sorry, but when I left high school, I had no idea what metaphysics was. If I had to guess, I probably would have thought it meant supernatural. That didn't change until I took my first philosophy class 2 years into college.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Maybe that's a difference between the US and Europe, then. I can't imagine that there could be many European High School graduates who wouldn't know what Metaphysics means. At least in Finland there's 1 mandatory course on Philosophy in the national High School curriculum. You get a basic idea of what the main fields of philosophy are. But most kids already know that stuff before High School, obviously.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Believe me, buddy, I wish I was in your system. Tennessee (the state I live in) is ranked 49th in the nation in terms of education. It's pathetic. I got lucky and had some amazing teachers along the way, but I'm pretty sure our high school didn't even have an elective philosophy class.

We had Bible Studies (as an elective) though. That's pretty much the same.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Ancient History Of The Middle East (Bible class, essentially)

It was the only class in high school that I failed. I did so intentionally.

I'm sure that any sort of Philosophy class in a High School in my state would be basically the same thing.

This is why I'm not going to take the Philosophy class offered in my College. I'm sure it will be tainted heavily by the teacher's religious leanings.

So everyone, Idealism or Realism?

• Idealism
  • Plato
  • Immanuel Kant
  • Rene Descartes
  • George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Realism
  • Aristotle
  • Al-Kindi or Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq as-Sabbah al-Kindi
  • Al-Farabi (Alpharabius)
  • Ibn Sina (Avicenna) or Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abdallah ibn Sina
  • Ibn Rushd (Avveroes) or Abdal-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd
  • Ibn Tufail or Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdal-Malik ibn Muhammad ibn Tufail al-Qaisi al-Andalusi
  • Albertus Magnus
  • Saint Thomas Acquinas
  • John Locke
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • Mortimer Jerome Adler
  • Harry Broudy
  • Ayn Rand

edited 5th Feb '13 4:18:22 AM by Kami4

Blue-and-Orange Morality! It's my new favorite trope! Also, it's my signature trope! It's also going to be my Catchphrase!

Um...can I have some of each?

I guess I'm more on the realist side, but I'm thinking that die-hard extreme realists might object to me saying that.

Join my forum game!

It seems to me that some of the philosophers you listed as "Idealists" and some of the ones you listed as "Realists" would be better categorized as "Dualist" — in that they recognize the existence of both the mental/abstract and the physical/material without claiming that one of these can be reduced entirely to the other.

For example, Descartes and Aristotle both had this kind of position, although, of course, their views differed otherwise quite a bit.

Still, both of them would oppose Hegelian Idealism (according to which the whole of reality is nothing but the manifestation of a purely abstract Spirit/Mind); and both of them would also reject Strawson's claim according to which "the mental/experiential is physical".

EDIT: And, yes, I have dualistic sympathies myself. For example, I can certainly agree that thoughts are manifested as patterns in human brains, forming and evolving according to physical laws; but while the brain is made of matter, the patterns and the laws themselves are not. I am not my physical brain, I think — no more than Pythagoras' Theorem is a blackboard with traces of chalk over it.

edited 6th Feb '13 7:01:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The worst part? None of the philosophers in the "Idealist" section except for Hegel are actually idealists. You also failed to mention Bishop Berkley out of all people in the Idealist list.

The philosophy course I took last year divided up (Western) Metaphysicists into Monists, Dualists, and Pluralists, with Idealists and Materialists being in the Monist section, which is probably a better way of categorising.

edited 6th Feb '13 12:59:10 PM by SantosLHalper

Plato could conceivably count as an idealist, I think, for some notion of idealism. After all, he definitely taught the preeminence of the world of Ideas over the sensible world.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

But it's not as if he said "the physical world doesn't exist; the mind is what makes reality", he said "physical reality exists, it's just that the abstract Forms are better".

edited 6th Feb '13 1:30:00 PM by SantosLHalper

I'm strict realist. (And hard determinist). However, I believe that human minds have an extremely imperfect (but mostly internally consistent) view of reality. I also think that our "shared delusions" are as, if not more important than abstract reality.

I think that he claimed not only that the abstract Forms are better, but also that the physical world is ontologically secondary, derived from the abstract forms. In a sense, if I am not misunderstanding his metaphysics, the sensible world is far less real than the abstract Forms are; and it exists only insofar as it participates — imperfectly — to the eternal, unchanging, perfect Forms.

Yes, it is not quite "the physical world does not exist"; but still, Plato treats the physical world as subordinate to — and, ultimately, derived from — the mental/abstract world.

I think.

That was certainly the point of view of Plotinus and of the other Neoplatonists, but perhaps Plato did not emphasize this aspect as much (although I think it is present in some of his writings, from what little I recall of them).

Remember, Plato was also a wrestling champion. He would physically destroy Kant, or any other philosopher for that matter

edited 6th Feb '13 1:31:09 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Speaking of Kant, I read his biography a while back, and I am now convinced that he and Twilight Sparkle are basically Bizarro Universe versions of each other.

edited 6th Feb '13 1:43:58 PM by SantosLHalper

Your description of Plato looks correct to me, and I would definitely put Plato firmly in the Rationalist and Idealist camps. (I can't really tell you why you should particularly care about my opinion about Plato. I've done some philosophy - enough to have it as a minor in my (future) degree, but if I were majoring in philosophy that'd be about 1-2 years' studies so it's not a whole lot. Still, better than nothing, I suppose!)

edited 6th Feb '13 2:11:12 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Ok, as I've noted, I was I've been busy lately so I had to limit my activity on these forums. I have some free time today, so I thought I would catch up in this topic.

Bear with me as it's a pretty long post.

I don't think I can, in a sense.

You're essentially asking me to prove one of my core axioms. Axioms don't work that way; they're supposed to be building blocks of your beliefs. You try to explain/justify certain things based on other things, but at some point, you arrive at more fundamental principles where you can't really prove anymore. It's just a matter of differences in belief at that point.

For one thing, my belief in absolute truth (and by extension, existence of true morals) is rooted in believing in God. This gives you a reason for true morals due to God's omni-objective point of view; that allows you to establish a standard consistent with the abstract moral truth. I am not going to debate the subject (theism/atheism) because of OTC rules and all. I'm simply stating my personal beliefs here.

However, you've noticed that I am not the only moral objectivist in this thread. Meklar, Vericrat, and Zendervai have shared my position in this matter. They might hold different ideas on existence/descriptions of God and other concepts, but they still agree on this: it's not impossible for morality to have truth, despite differing ideas about that truth.

See, it's theoretically possible to claim moral objectivism without directly relying on God, and moral philosophers have done so. When utilitarians assert that the moral action favors net utility (they generally associate this with net happiness vs suffering), they think it's true. They think morality is objectively about happiness. And they're willing to take their case and show that they favor this over other ethical theories, such as Kantian ethics (which value fairness and justice, in loose terms). Note that I'm not speaking for utilitarians in this forum.

You (and Best Of) say you're a Rawlsian. Now, think about this: does that mean you believe that there's some truth to Rawlsian ideas, that John Rawls actually made a good point? Or do you simply think "it's just convenient for me"?

I think that implies this: when someone else disagrees with you in an ethics-involving discussion, you can't claim that the other view is flawed. The idea of objective, absolute morals enables you to do that. It allows you to critique other beliefs and defend your own. That's what happens in a philosophical debate. People give different answers, not because there is no true answer, but because people have different ideas on what that true answer is.

And that's really my reason.

But that's the thing. I can't really prove it, beyond a certain limit. I didn't claim I was able to.

This is the whole point of this idea, though. Not being able to prove something doesn't necessarily mean it can't be true. You just have to take it by faith. Proof does not create truth; instead it allows you to see that truth and be rest assured, based on validity.

This concept of being unprovable is actually found in mathematics as well. For example, Kurt Godel had shown that the basic arithmetic (like 1+1=2) can't be proven to be true, because at some point you don't have enough materials to work with. This equation is a very cherished concept, one we just take for granted in usage, but once you try to actually prove it, you might be at a loss.

As I've said in response to Lawyerdude, there's great diversity in people's beliefs, due to their limits in perception, and their own interpretations. They don't believe things just for fun; they believe what they think is true and important. They're trying to learn what they can about this truth (under the limits).

But I did get taught an argument in favor of absolute truth, in my critical thinking class. I'll try to see if I can find it when I get home; I'm not home when I post this.

Honestly I would like to move on to other topics soon, instead of having this dominate the discussion for too long.

edited 6th Feb '13 3:51:17 PM by Trivialis

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, without presuming that anyone with a similar position to mine would agree with what I'm about to say.

By saying that I'm Rawlsian I mean that Rawles had a good (in my opinion) idea for a way to approach moral principles when we (as in, "we humans") are trying to discover what we would consider "good."

He didn't speak a truth; the method that he developed for thinking about morality is a construct, just like morality itself. It is something that we humans (often unknowingly) invent.

I act on the basis of what I think is right because I find myself unable to do otherwise, at least while remaining happy; or rather, whenever I have discovered a moral failure in something I've done I feel bad about having done it, while simultanously taking some satisfaction in having figured it out. Doing good gives me some pleasure, so I suppose you could say that I'm good for a "selfish" reason; though the other reason I'm good - an innate urge in me - is not quite as easy to describe as "selfish."

I feel like I'm going in circles around the answer.

No, I don't believe in objective morality. I don't believe that there is a moral truth, or that there even can be such a thing. Instead, morality is a emotional and mental process that occurs in the minds of humans (and some other animals.) It is an evolved feature of our species. Now, you can ask if following your evolved instincts is a good thing; but in the end the very philosophy you're doing is probably "just" an instinct for curiosity. It's all natural, and all subjective.

I'm not going to go into the evolution of empathy and solidarity here, at least in this post. I do hold the view that these are evolved traits that were selected for by natural selection. The instinct to try to imagine what someone else feels, the desire not to harm them, and the urge to help them if they seem to need help is something that I consider an instinct; something that happens almost by itself, like pulling a blanket over an exposed part of my body if it's cold. That certainly is my experience of morality.

As for why I would seek out or invent models to approach moral principles, that is simply an extension of the instinct to do good, combined with the instinct to seek out understanding or answer questions. I'm sure you'll agree that we have a natural urge to seek answers to questions that are important, as well as ones that aren't - practically, at least. We also look for answers to questions about reality - and questions about fiction or abstract ideas. For instance, at the moment I care very (and surprisingly) deeply about the main character of a book I'm reading.

So when I'm thinking about a model that helps me improve my behaviour to be "more moral," I'm satisfying some basic social instincts, in the same way that I would if I were trying to comfort someone who is crying. My instinct for curiosity (which in itself makes no significant distinction between real and concrete or fictional and abstract things) is pulling me in the same direction as my instinct to be social, and if I don't follow these instincts I suffer psychological discomfort, similar to thinking about an animal in intense pain.

If I construct in my mind an abstraction like "human rights" it doesn't mean that that abstraction exists outside of my mind - and yet it can become a fundamental part of who I am as a person. I think it's the same with "rules" of morality like the ancient Golden Rule: it doesn't exist in itself, but my instincts and my mind are cooperating to make me think about it and try to live according to it.

As you might have noticed (or as you might think I am deluding myself,) I am usually very aware of the processes going on in my mind. Thinking about what I'm thinking and feeling (and why I'm thinking and feeling that and so on) has always been something I do whenever I notice something interesting happening in my mind, and this habit (which I can't really control to any significant extent) grew much more prevalent when I was receiving treatment for depression about 7 years ago.

By the way, that I consider my core values subjective doesn't mean that I feel that they're somehow meaningless or empty. I'll concede that they don't exist outside of my mind - and I'll also concede that I cannot imagine any way that they could exist except as constructs of my mind - but to my subjective experience, which of course is the reality of my life as I experience it, these values are absolutely central.

Still, there are some values that to me are even more central - more axiomatic - than my views on morality. One of these is the pursuit of understanding about reality. Another is the practice of philosophy. Understanding reality brings me the information I need to make decisions with which I'm satisfied; thinking about morality brings me satisfaction that I've defined better ways to think about the good of myself and of others. If I neglect either of these I suffer discomfort.

Concepts like "good" and "utility" can only be defined within a framework that is previously established, so whenever I say "distributing vaccinations to remove lethal diseases" is "good," what I mean is that it is "good" in the way that I understand good - part of which is the alleviation of suffering when possible. In defining "good" I have found that I cannot go beyond my innate urge (or instinct) for empathy and solidarity; so while I acknowledge that they are evolved traits that don't connect to any fundamental reality of "good" beyond my mind, I will also acknowledge that to me, subjectively, they feel important and impossible to avoid, and so I cannot avoid drawing my baseline there.

edited 6th Feb '13 4:32:29 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Very well put, Best of. I was about to write a long response, but you managed to encapsulate my feelings exactly. Morality is important, but it's important because we're all humans, and have much of the same emotional and physical needs. It's most beneficial to the species, and an evolutionary benefit, if we treat each other a certain way.

However, this isn't a cosmic truth, a law of the universe like gravity. This is simply a function of human minds, albeit one we all share to some extent. That doesn't make it any less important, however, it's good to recognize that as it's a function of the human mind, and is applicable to humans in general, it's not a quantifiable, measurable constant. If it were, there would be no point to it.

I find laws interesting.

Legal laws and "objective" laws are different. When not constrained by the latter, you can break the former, and then it's the matter of how the consequences are handled.

On the other hand, how do we absolutely know that absolute truth is absolutely true? I mean, we humans don't create or enforce the laws of gravity; the universe does.

So there might be exceptions that we're yet to observe.

Hey, scientific laws are deemed wrong all the time. We used to think that it's the absolute truth that the Earth is flat. Evidence made most of us revise that "truth".

As said, it's all in the mind. There are truths we should accept in order to live daily life smoothly. For example, that this world is "real". There's little evidence against the contrary, so there's little use losing sleep on the thought.

For now, we accept the laws of gravity, because it's practical to do so.

---

I got a question.

What is it called when the consequences of following a rule framed as an absolute (never [x] or always [x]) are more dire than the consequences of breaking them.

A hypothetical: You're at a boarding school, and there's a line drawn in the fields. The rule is: Never cross the line, or you will be expelled.

One day, it just happens that unless you cross the line, the world will end. There's no way around it.

You might get expelled, but it's better than the world ending.

edited 6th Feb '13 6:26:18 PM by chihuahua0

What's the point of crossing the line?

Either the lesser of two evils, or a stupid, arbitrary rule?

The nice thing about laws like gravity is that you don't have to accept them. They don't care about your feelings or opinions; they simply are. The model we have for how gravity works is accepted because it's been shown to be accurate. If something else comes up that provides a better explanation, then that will be accepted.

Arguments for objective morality sound nice to some people, but they fall apart as soon as you examine them in any sort of depth. Because ultimately moral laws will come down to somebody's opinion.

Even so-called "Objectivism" can't make the leap from what is to what ought to be. The reasoning is always fuzzy.

Try to argue morality is objective because a God said so, and you run into the same problem. Even if there were a God, questions of morality would still come down to our opinion of its opinion.

But on crossing the hypothetical line, it really comes down to what the person values most: existence with expulsion, or nonexistence? Human beings can make laws govening ourselves, we can't make laws governing how the universe works.

edited 6th Feb '13 7:39:17 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

It's just example. I have difficulty thinking up a real-world example, but you probably know what kind of rules I'm talking about.

Basically, someone tells you to "never, never, never, ever do [x]", and for the most part, there's no use breaking that rule, because in most situations, the payoffs of breaking the rule aren't worth it. Maybe breaking it might lead to people getting hurt.

But sometimes, you have to use your own logic to determine whatever to break an absolute rule.

edited 6th Feb '13 7:42:56 PM by chihuahua0

Truth is defined by two things-usefulness, and applicability (at least in my opinion, others may say different?). It is not useful to assume objective morality unless everyone believe it to be the case. It is also not applicable for the same reasons. Accepting gravity as an absolute is useful and applicable, by which I mean our day-to-day experiences and endeavors work best when we treat it as true.

This is getting into hazy semantics. Rules can be broken. Objective, universal laws cannot. You cannot escape gravity. You can deny it exists, but it will still affect you. Anything that can be broken is not a objective, universal law.

edited 6th Feb '13 7:46:27 PM by DrTentacles

Edit-Merged with above post

edited 6th Feb '13 7:46:04 PM by DrTentacles